Crash stats

[mashman]

I am just quoting the true number of crashes reported by the Police to answer the OP and other questions that came up, seeing as you asked. No juggling required. However crunching stats obviously can change things because that is exactly what the ACC have just done isn’t it ?

Is there any further breakdown of these stats? i.e. Estimated speed, reason categorisation for crash, location etc...

[Berries]

Is there any further breakdown of these stats? i.e. Estimated speed, reason categorisation for crash, location etc...

Yes, but estimated speed doesn't tell you anything unless you also look at the speed limit and any curve advisory signage. And unless it was a fatal where the Police did actually try and calculate the speed then it is just a best guess, or based on what the driver/rider said which is possibly going to be an understatement to try and protect themselves. Not much use. "Too fast for the conditions" is a catch all term. If you crash on a bend then it doesn't matter what speed you were going, if you had been going a bit slower you might have made it. Therefore it might get classed as "Too fast for the conditions" when "excessive speed" may be a more useful indicator.

Reason categorisation is a bit vague from the CAS outputs, you actually need to look at individual reports to see what info is hiding away to get a true picture. For instance, it will say "failed to see or look for other party" for just about every intersection crash but you won't necessarily know why. Were they in a hurry, having a bad day etc etc. There are additional sub codes used but I wouldn't attempt an analysis like that on such a big list. A couple of clicks will give you an overall answer but it will really need further drilling in to to provide anything of use. My day job doesn't allow me the time to do that at the moment.

For a proper analysis you need to sit down and view the crash reports. As for location, well, everywhere. Anything specific you are thinking of ?

[Spearfish]

We are missing some vital details

[MSTRS:Me]

"Crunching stats will never change anything"

So apart from some academic exercise, what outcome do you wish to achieve ?

The 'stats' (according to ACC) is what brought us all to this point.
I did start this thread as more for my own interest, but hey...the numbers that are appearing here are telling a story that is somewhat different to what ACC etc would have us all believe.

You are all doing what you are accusing ACC of, "Trying to juggle the stats to fit your agenda"

When you find out that it looks bad, or does not prove anything based on the little data you have been provided, you all start juggling again.

There's no juggling of figures going on here. Simple numbers, lined up, going back over the years. Regardless of whether recent figures 'look bad' - a simple comparison with earlier years (say 1982/1983/1984) tells a very different story as far as 'bad' goes. That's not to say I don't think we couldn't all do better now anyway.

I mealy suggest that you decide what facts you wish to prove and if the data does not provide you with the answer you want, ACCEPT it.

This is not the first time these numbers have been crunched and have looked bad for bikers.

The numbers are what they are. But like any ledgerbook, there are several columns of numbers. One column in isolation is of no practical use, other than for propaganda purposes. We all know that propaganda is a big word for 'lies'.

If you are doing it as an academic exercise then feel free.

Started off as an 'academic exercise' - who knows tho, maybe the truths here will come in useful as this fight progresses. The strange thing about truth is that it always comes out eventually.

But understand when you finally get to the conclusion, that bikes crash and if the are more bikes, there are more crashes. Please feel free to inform ACC that they are right.

As said, ACC are only 'right' when some figures are viewed in isolation. Try filing a GST or Income Tax return using only your expenses for the year...

[wingrider]

Ok, this is slightly off topic but as stats have formed a basis on what ACC and Smith are trying to sell to the public, by way of levy increases, I'll add my 2c worth.

At the end of WW2, America's leading statistician, Dr Deming, was sent to Japan to evaluate a way for Japans economy to recover from the deverstation.

He devised a 14 point plan, radical to the Americans, ( and it was not accepted by them) but quickly taken up firstly by Toyota and quickly followed by other leading Japaneese businesses.

It was so successful, that in the early 50's it was adopted also by the japaneese government.

The end result was that Japan bounced back to be one of the worlds leading economy's.

It was not until 1980 that Ford commissioned him to help them recover from deverstating losses that America started to wake up. But his plan was never adopted by them.

His whole theory was based on one resounding philosophy,

Dr. W. Edwards Deming taught that by adopting appropriate principles of management, organizations can increase quality and simultaneously reduce costs (by reducing waste, rework, staff attrition and litigation while increasing customer loyalty). The key is to practice continual improvement and think of manufacturing as a system, not as bits and pieces."[20]

In the 1970s, Dr. Deming's philosophy was summarized by some of his Japanese proponents with the following 'a'-versus-'b' comparison:

(a) When people and organizations focus primarily on quality, defined by the following ratio,

Quality = Results of work efforts, divided by Total costs.

quality tends to increase and costs fall over time.

(b) However, when people and organizations focus primarily on costs, costs tend to rise and quality declines over time.

I believe the concept of ACC and the Woodhouse principles were along this line of thinking.

By making everyone responsible and thinking of ways to improve their personal safety, you lower the costs and make a quality system.

For whatever reason, over time, the emphasis has gone on cost at the expense of quality.
Also no one seems to have a handle on how to correctly interperate the statistics and felt increasing the cost is the only answer.

I also feel that in our shock when the proposal was announced, we started to think smarter and were able to annalyse the data more effectivly than the politicians or the management of ACC.

Our focus was on quality, reduction of cost, and investment in safety further reducing cost.

We have some very clever and smart people here on KB.

Whats needed is to convince the average joe public, that if we invest in sound educational self safety campaigns, funded by the surplus and investment gains, and return to the foundation principles of ACC, it can be returned to the quality scheme it was intended to be without increasing cost.

In Dr Deming's words,
Adopting appropriate principles of management.

[StoneY]

Of all the crash stats I have ever read, this line from a Herald article today made my blood run cold....

Research published in the New Zealand Medical Journal in September found 16 children were killed and 216 hospitalised in quadbike, or ATV, crashes between 2000 and 2006.

16 kids killed.........thats fuckin mayhem
I am a new convert to minimum age on quads as of today...dead serious

[mashman]

For a proper analysis you need to sit down and view the crash reports. As for location, well, everywhere. Anything specific you are thinking of ?

Nope, nothing specific. You've more than answered my query and confirmed what i thought. I also wish my day job allowed me to have a sit and produce a "real" analysis to support the figures that gobmint agencies put forwards, if only for prevention purposes. Even then though, as you say, there's likely to be lies lies and damned lies from those involved, but at least that would be the official findings...

Perhaps the new software that ACC are implementing will enable us to gaina clearer picture of what's happening and why... TUI

[mashman]

Ok just 1 quick question. How many motorcycle incidents where reported as avoiding another vehicle? Maybe avoiding a road hazard might be a better way of describing it.

[MSTRS:Me]

Ok just 1 quick question. How many motorcycle incidents where reported as avoiding another vehicle? Maybe avoiding a road hazard might be a better way of describing it.

As nice as it may be to 'prove' that we are seldom responsible for our bins, it's a forlorn hope to try and do so. Also I'm not sure that there is any use in garnering that info. ACC is still (apparently) a no-fault system, so they are only interested in crash injuries.
Still, if the breakdown exists, and shows a large percentage of bike-only are result of avoiding BadStuff (TM), perhaps that would spur more training schemes to promote rider awareness/control.

[R-Soul]

Hmmm. You may have a point. It is fair to say that in the 70s, there was a lot more bikes than now. I don't know that they were never used for 'play'...I know that mine got plenty of playtime.
I doubt that mileage stats would be available prior to online WOFs.

It might be that the bikes of then were not capable of the ridiculous speeds and huge acceleration that they are capable of now? And people did not trust their engineering enough to feel bulletproof at stupid speeds like they do now?

[MSTRS:Me]

It might be that the bikes of then were not capable of the ridiculous speeds and huge acceleration that they are capable of now? And people did not trust their engineering enough to feel bulletproof at stupid speeds like they do now?

Then why are the crash stats from those times so bad compared to now? I mean, crashes per 10,000 bikes ranged from 248 to 533 in the 70s. They've been under 150 in the 2000s, and as low as 114 (2001).

[R-Soul]

Then why are the crash stats from those times so bad compared to now? I mean, crashes per 10,000 bikes ranged from 248 to 533 in the 70s. They've been under 150 in the 2000s, and as low as 114 (2001).

Good point...
Maybe back then teh engineering was not good enough to keep people out of trouble, but then the safety aspects (brakes, suspension etc) cuaght up. now the engine stech has made bikes too fast for themselves again? I dont claim to know it all - just making suggestions...

[MSTRS:Me]

Good point...
Maybe back then teh engineering was not good enough to keep people out of trouble, but then the safety aspects (brakes, suspension etc) cuaght up. now the engine stech has made bikes too fast for themselves again? I dont claim to know it all - just making suggestions...

I can't explain why the crash rate is so changeable either.
If we look at bikes, and their capabilities - then modern bikes are a quantum leap ahead of anything from the 70s. Yet, compare a new bike of any genre with one from the 90s, and there isn't a huge deal of difference in terms of power/handling. Sprotbikes may have far greater hp now, but even in the squids world on our roads, there isn't a huge difference as to how quick these bikes can go, and how fast they can get there.
If you want to go that way, then you have to breakdown the stats even more...right down to make/model*...but at least down to style. I don't think there is any reason to believe that only sprotbikers are killing themselves. Or that HD riders are standout features.
I think it's more rider attitude or experience.
It's reasonably common knowledge that the heyday of biking was in decline from about the mid 80s through to the early 2000s. So by 2001 (that year saw the lowest crash rate ever), perhaps only longterm riders were still 'at it'? All their idiot mates had either killed themselves or had given up bikes, and the dedication/experience was showing in the crash rate? Since then, bikes have been on the rise again, and the slight rise in the crash rate is a result of a new crop of idiots, or the return of the old ones that had given it away?

* Certain bikes earned a rep - like the old Kwaka triples, the 750? became known as The Widowmaker...for good reason. I recall the first Z900s (of Stone fame) - I seem to remember there being 7 brought into the country and within a short time of them all being sold, 6 were written off and the riders dead. Those bikes were tame by today's standards, but they were a huge leap beyond most bigger road bikes at the time, and no doubt that caught out their squidly riders.

[R-Soul]

I can't explain why the crash rate is so changeable either.

It's reasonably common knowledge that the heyday of biking was in decline from about the mid 80s through to the early 2000s. So by 2001 (that year saw the lowest crash rate ever), perhaps only longterm riders were still 'at it'? All their idiot mates had either killed themselves or had given up bikes, and the dedication/experience was showing in the crash rate? Since then, bikes have been on the rise again, and the slight rise in the crash rate is a result of a new crop of idiots, or the return of the old ones that had given it away?

Thats a very good explanation. Now explain why bikes were in decline? Because all and sundry were killing themselves?

[MSTRS:Me]

Thats a very good explanation. Now explain why bikes were in decline? Because all and sundry were killing themselves?

Nope. Used Jap import cars were replacing bikes in the cheap vehicle market. Which meant that most of those who viewed bikes as cheap transport were dragged away. Only the dedicated kept at it.